For you Bush supporters out there

[D_Raay]

REQUIRED READING FOR BUSH SUPPORTERS

The facts and allegations contained in this post are not disputed, are easily verified and are documented by the subjects in their own words. I am writing this not to tell you about some secret on to which I have stumbled, rather to explain the well defined and verifiable information that has been kept out of the public discourse by the American corporate news media. Perhaps this will serve as a prime example of how much media deception takes place in our nation. I ask you not to accept what you read in this article as truth, and I ask you not to dismiss it as an untruth, I ask you to research the claims for yourself. The information is out there and nobody is denying the claims made in this article. They are simply refusing to discuss them.
Please, don’t trust me…test me.

1. A FICTIONAL TALE OF HORROR

If you wanted to hire a child daycare professional to look after your child, it seems reasonable that you would want to know something about that person’s background. Perhaps you would check into his or her criminal history to see if there was a record of sexual offense or violence towards children. Perhaps you would check the person’s religious background to make certain he is not involved in any bizarre religious practice such as child or animal sacrifice. You surely would conduct a thorough and painstaking pursuit of all available information about the applicant.

By performing your due diligence, you would be acting in the best interest of your child; you would be acting as a fully responsible parent; and you would be ensuring that the person you hire is exactly what he or she purports to be.

Now, let’s assume that during your investigation you uncover nothing really suspicious about the person at all. All you find out is that the name of the applicant’s religion is very similar to your own. In fact, because the name is “Neo-Christianity” or “Neo-Judaism,” you feel quite comfortable with the term. After all, it sounds so familiar and suggests a close connection to your own belief system.

What if you accept this discovery and feel quite safe with the presumptions you made – even though you never took a moment to research the newly identified religion?

And what if you made a dreadful and irreparable mistake?

Let’s say you then are confident enough in the applicant to hire him to care for your child. But then one day your worst nightmare becomes a reality. You come home to find your child slaughtered and his blood splattered all over your home. And there, in the middle of the room is your new hired day care professional on his knees, praying to an unfamiliar God!

You bury your child and you live with the terrible knowledge that you can never bring your child back to life. The day care worker is arrested, and during the trial you find out that the person you hired to protect your child was participating in a ritual demanded by the precepts of his religion.

You learn that it was his religious duty to lure you into trusting him so that he could have access to your child. You discover, far too late, that your similar sounding religions are indeed nothing alike. You now deeply regret not listening to the people who warned you about the members of that particular religion. You are ashamed that you once labeled them “Neo-Christian (or Neo-Jewish) bashers” and trusted your own instincts instead. You are horrified that you refused to look at the documents about this strange religion that those “Neo-Whatever bashers” tried to share with you.

You suddenly realize that the people who tried so hard to warn you knew something you didn’t. They were actually looking out for your best interests and you would not listen. You found that out too late; far, far too late.

2. A REALITY BASED TALE OF HORROR

But first, a question to the people who support the Bush administration and their policies: Have you done your due diligence to become a well informed citizen of the United States or are you simply following the advice of a handful of people who told you to trust them? Think about it.

From here on, when I refer to “Bush” I also refer to the people who comprise his administration, the people who have defined the policies of his administration and the people who have led day to day operations and activities within his administration. For the sake of simplicity I may speak of these people by referring to the symbol of their collective deeds: George W. Bush.

I have a great deal of experience dealing with Bush supporters and with his opponents. I find that supporters and detractors of Bush often have something very interesting in common: both groups know very little about the character, principles and philosophy of the people about whom they have formed an opinion.

Let’s begin by taking a closer look at two groups that make up the Bush administration. Surely, some people in the Bush White House fall outside these groups and in most cases merely serve as window dressing for the administration. They yield little power and have no significant influence but often, as in the case of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, provide a convenient aura of legitimacy.

Let us, then, concentrate on the two groups that play an active and powerful role in the Bush administration.

[D_Raay]

Group 1: The Neocons – The Policy Makers of the Administration

We have heard the term “Neocon” for the past five years. We have been told time and time again that the bulk of key policy makers in the Bush administration are Neo-Conservatives yet we never hear much about what Neocons believe in nor do we hear anything about their principles.

I really believe that is in everybody’s best interest to stop using labels as a general reference to political groups unless we know what the label means. The order of the day, however, is to do just that: to label someone a ‘conservative’ or a “commie” or a “liberal” without the slightest knowledge of the basic principles of conservatism or communism or liberalism.

Do the name callers have a specific doctrine or platform in mind when they use a political designation as a derogatory term? Most probably, they do not. Perhaps, if they looked up the words they hurled so easily, they might be very surprised to discover how ignorant they were of the principles involved.

On the other hand, believing a name has a positive connotation can be a serious mistake as well. We hear the term ‘Neocon’ tossed around quite easily nowadays by people who have no clue as to what it means. The term is far too often embraced for its adoption of the term ‘conservative,” and presumed to share the values of the American right. However, if people on the right, - true conservatives, took the time to understand the philosophy of Neo-Conservatism, they might be terribly disappointed.

Indeed, Neo-Conservatism bears little resemblance to traditional Conservatism. As a matter of fact the naming of the ideology may have been a strategic move intended on making Republicans and Conservatives feel comfortable with the term. It might have served to allay the suspicion or curiosity of those who should have taken a much closer look into what Neocons are all about.

There is no question that there is a frighteningly powerful Neo-Conservative influence over American foreign policy in this administration. That is an undeniable reality. However, while members of the media such as Chris Matthews use the term on a fairly regular basis, they never explain what Neo-Conservatism is all about.

To counter that, let’s look at some of the basic principles of Neo-Conservatism:

The godfather of the Neocon movement was an intellectual disciple of Machiavelli named Leo Strauss. Straus was a German Zionist who immigrated to the US in the 1930s and mentored people like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz while advocating his philosophy of a dog-eat-dog world.

In essence, the Straussian philosophy and teachings are now known as Neo-Conservatism. Below are some of the more interesting and perhaps surprising or even disturbing aspects of Neo-Conservatism as taught by Strauss:

* Nations cannot consider collective action and multilateralism unless it is 100 percent in line with their own selfish interests
* Strong leadership is required
* Military power is essential
* Leadership ought not be encumbered by human rights discourse or a moral conscience but nonetheless must "appear" to advocate such ideas.
* Rulers need not observe the laws they impose on the ruled.
* A ruler can cheat and lie and do all sorts of things but should at all time maintain the outside appearance of adherence to human rights and caring for people.
* Leaders can use religion as one of many tools to ensure the nation keeps on course as formulated.
* Outside threats help ensure social cohesion under domestic leadership
* Altruism, environmental protection, justice etc, are not the concern of governments and ruling elites. They have no part to play in the equation of power
* Strauss questioned how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.
* Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society, especially a liberal society because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
* Secular society is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats
* Nazism was a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic.
* Religion should impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control.

Machiavelli’s political doctrine serves as the foundation of Neo-Conservatism and it denies the relevance of morality in political affairs. It states that that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power. It implies that when it comes to achieving or maintaining power the end justifies the means. This is essentially the core of Machiavellianism and serves as the foundation for Neo-Conservatism: The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. Machiavelli discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He was in the business of power preservation not piety. According to the originator of Neo-Conservative ideology the leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.

Let me repeat this last principle of Neo-Conservatism because it plays into the “believability factor” when considering claims made by people who accuse the Bush administration of unconscionable actions: “The leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.” These people believe that evil is acceptable and necessary at times!

A question for Bush backers: Are these the principles and ideals that you chose to support when you aligned yourself with the Bush administration? I am not discussing a conspiracy theory here. We have established clearly and undeniably that George W. Bush has assembled an administration founded on Neo-Conservative principles and a Neo-Conservative agenda. What I have outlined here are the beliefs and philosophies of the Neo-Conservatives within the administration. You can verify this on your own. I implore you to do so and I wish you had done so several years ago, prior to September 11th 2001.

Let’s move on.

Group 2: The Operatives

Fact: While Congress absconded into its many periods of recess, and under the cooperative cloak of the American corporate media, George W. Bush welcomed back into government an alarming array of individuals who have had decades of experience in undermining the democratic processes of government at its highest levels.

I am not simply talking about people who have been associated with political actions with which I strongly disagree. I am talking about people involved in serious criminal conspiracies conducted at the top echelons of our government. I am talking about convicted felons who have been personally appointed by George W. Bush to important and powerful positions without Congressional consent. I am talking about a laundry list of people who were at some time convicted of, tried for or associated with one of the biggest criminal operations ever conducted by an American administration.

While well meaning and decent Bush supporters rejoiced in the fact that they no longer had as president a man who would lie about his sex life, they did not know that their current leader was filling high level positions with people who had decades of experience subverting the democratic process and running criminal operations as part of a huge, criminal, government-operated conspiracy. Yes, the Iran-Contra gang came back to Washington and our corporate media did not have time to share this information with the American people.

The line-up is pretty impressive: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, and Rogelio Pardo-Maurer. These men were all rewarded with powerful jobs in the Bush government for their felonious and murderous backgrounds. You don’t remember what they did or why they were convicted of anything? Look them up folks; don’t trust me to fill in the blanks. Look them up and wonder why these appointments didn’t make the morning headlines when they occurred.

Ask yourself why you didn’t know that your president appointed felons and their associates to very high level positions within your government? Does this bother you at all? Is this what you thought you voted for…twice?

In Perspective

Let’s put this information into perspective. We have an administration that is largely controlled by a group that uses a fairly benign sounding name. Neo-Conservatism sounds very much like an acceptable and ethical political ideology. The principles involved in this group, however are the architects and power brokers of the failed and war mongering foreign policy of the Bush administration: the policy that has us now mired in Iraq, poised to strike Iran and Syria, and dead broke to boot.

Make no mistake. This is not a conservative group of politicos with an upgraded title. This is, in fact, a group that is extremely, not slightly reactionary. They are, also extremely, not slightly, dangerous. They contradict almost every concepts Americans associate with a democratic republic and they do not adhere to the restrictions and boundaries defined by the US Constitution.

The philosophy of the current administration, as defined by the doctrine of the Neocons themselves and those of their mentors, has much more in common with Fascist dictators such as Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin. This is not a liberal rant, it is an accurate assessment based on the undisputed, fully documented and openly admitted principles of the people who currently comprise the George W. Bush administration. It is not in their best interest to let you know this, but at the same time they do not hide this information from you. Look it up. The media have done a yeoman’s job of hiding this information from you. It’s your turn to do the work.

Keep in mind that the Neo-Con philosophy states that no rules apply when it comes to achieving power, even lying and cheating. And then consider the actions of the Bush administration in every single policy it has pursued – from election results to war, from the environment to the economy. They set the rules, they do as they please. Anything goes.

Look around at all the lies, the deception and the fraud and welcome in the New World order that answers to no one – no one at all.

At this very minute, the people who are in charge of the government of the United States of America believe that no rules apply to them. They believe that religion can be used to control society and that human rights do not apply to them. They do not have to follow the laws that all other citizens must respect, and they openly believe that evil is acceptable if deemed necessary to achieve their goals.

Add to the mix the extraordinary power now in the hands of people with decades of experience in subverting the law and the democratic process, and in conducting massive criminal conspiracies from inside the government.

Put it all together and you have an administration operating at the greatest levels of secrecy of any government in history, and run by people whose goals and beliefs have never been explained to the public whose interests they are supposedly serving.

I have yet to come across a Bush supporter who is aware of the underlying philosophy of the Neocons who direct the policies of the current administration. I have yet to meet one supporter who has any clue as to the extent that our democracy and Constitution have been compromised by these powerful and ruthless ideologues.

Still I believe that if they did their homework and examined the information that is NOT reported by our broadcast media but is nonetheless available, even present day Bush supporters would be very disturbed and most probably horrified.

And if they are, there is still time to take back the nation. There is still time for all Americans to take their patriotic responsibilities seriously. There is still time for all Americans who still back this President to understand what they have been supporting.
It is not possible for anyone to defend the goals of Neo-Conservatives and still claim to be an American. It is a contradiction of terms.

The fictional parents in the introduction to this post made a tragic mistake. They assumed it was not necessary to fully investigate the person to whom they entrusted the welfare of their child. Similarly, many real people in this nation have made a terrible and irretrievable error.

Millions of Americans entrusted their well being and the well being of their nation to an administration they accepted at face value. They bought into the promotions and the mantras, and the lies and the deceits. They did not ask the questions and they believed what they were told.

As in the fictional story, the damage is done and there is no going back. But, in real life there is always a tomorrow. There has to be a moment in which each and every person who has refused to do so in the past takes the time to find out who is running this country, and to understand where these totally evil men are taking us all.

For your own sake, look them up. For your own sake, understand who is at the helm of this sinking ship. For your own sake, believe what the Neocons in power proudly and openly admit on their own web site.

For your own sake, wake up before they take us all into their distorted fantasy world of military global domination. Or, sit back and watch the end of the world as we know it. It’s your choice. Go for it.

[ASsman]

Will be there be some cliff notes. Let's be realistic here.

[Qdrop]

In essence, the Straussian philosophy and teachings are now known as Neo-Conservatism. Below are some of the more interesting and perhaps surprising or even disturbing aspects of Neo-Conservatism as taught by Strauss:

* Nations cannot consider collective action and multilateralism unless it is 100 percent in line with their own selfish interests
* Strong leadership is required
* Military power is essential
* Leadership ought not be encumbered by human rights discourse or a moral conscience but nonetheless must "appear" to advocate such ideas.
* Rulers need not observe the laws they impose on the ruled.
* A ruler can cheat and lie and do all sorts of things but should at all time maintain the outside appearance of adherence to human rights and caring for people.
* Leaders can use religion as one of many tools to ensure the nation keeps on course as formulated.
* Outside threats help ensure social cohesion under domestic leadership
* Altruism, environmental protection, justice etc, are not the concern of governments and ruling elites. They have no part to play in the equation of power
* Strauss questioned how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.
* Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society, especially a liberal society because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
* Secular society is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats
* Nazism was a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic.
* Religion should impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control.


^ yeah, i'd say that's a brutally biased take on the elements of neo-conservatism....
sounds more like someone's interpretation of the elements, rather than a objective view.

[D_Raay]

^ yeah, i'd say that's a brutally biased take on the elements of neo-conservatism....
sounds more like someone's interpretation of the elements, rather than a objective view.
Perhaps you should take some time and read up on Strauss, there is no bias here as I stated earlier.

[sam i am]

What most people who adhere to "neo-conservatism" believe and what is elucidated above as "neo-conservatism" are not one and the same.

Neo-conservatism, in my estimation, is much more about an activist role in the world and a supply-side economics domestically tempered with a hearty dose of pragmatism and incrementalism.

[Qdrop]

What most people who adhere to "neo-conservatism" believe and what is elucidated above as "neo-conservatism" are not one and the same.

Neo-conservatism, in my estimation, is much more about an activist role in the world and a supply-side economics domestically tempered with a hearty dose of pragmatism and incrementalism.

exactly.

[Qdrop]

Perhaps you should take some time and read up on Strauss, there is no bias here as I stated earlier.

those are not Stauss's words...and you know that.

[D_Raay]

The "traditional" conservative Claes Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn asserts that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences.

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that[Neo-Jacobinism] regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue."

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style "liberal democracy" instead of socialism.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: "They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."

I would hardly say that I "know" anything contrary to what I stated. You believe whatever you want and be part of the problem.

[Qdrop]

it's not like i'm saying Neocons rule or anything...

i understand and have a real fear for thier intentions...

but your article masquerading as objective truth, when it is clearly slanted yellow journalism, is unsettling.

[D_Raay]

So says you, I don't see it that way at all.

[graham]

To be quite honest, i found "D Raay"'s opinions to be downright offensive. It seems the purpose of this entry was to explain to anyone who would listen that "D Raay" knows and understands more about American politics than everybody else. "D Raay" repeatedly uses logical fallacies instead of factual proof or deductive reasoning to try and blind readers into thinking that his opinions are provable facts (Which i guess he/she had to do, because otherwise his/her entry would sound as ridiculous as it actually is). "D Raay" started off his/her entry by attmpting to prove that George W. Bush and absolutley everyone else even remotley associated with his government practiced and believed in the fundamentals of neo-conservatism as outlined by Levi Strauss. This "arguement" is completley illegitimate for several reasons:

1. "D Raay" failed to prove or even factually suggest that anyone in the Bush administration has before or ever will practice Strauss's ideals, He/She fails to prove that the administration has made any action or ever will make any action that supports Strauss's ideals, and He/She fails to prove that anyone in the administration has ever even heard of Levi Strauss.

2. This arguement is a paradox. "D Raay" explained at the beginning of his/her article that (In her opinion) every Bush supporter and most of the "Corporate media" don't understand the meaning of Neo-conservatism, although it is these very same people who use and hear the word every day. If the Bush administration has been dubbed "Neo-Conserative" by people who do not understand the meaning of the word, then he word has gained a new meaning as it pertains to Bush, i.e. the word "Neo-conservative" has evolved to the point where it no longer has an association to Strauss or is ideologies.

3. Ideologies are different in every government in every time period and once these ideologies can be attributed to an actual political/social institution, the ideologies have changed distinctly from what the ideologues who conceived them once intended them to be; an ideologie in theory is not the same as an ideologie in practice. Look at Liberalism. Liberalism during the french revolution was considered to be an extremist radicalist view, today it rests in the centre of the political spectrum. Look at Communism. The teachings of communist ideologues is extraordinarily different from communism in reality, just because certain factors of an ideologie exist in theory does not mean they exist in fact. In fact, most factors of an ideological theory do not become part of the actual institution, and have not become part of the institution with any other ideologie, to suggest that they have (especially with neo-conservatism) is an arguement completley void of any logic or actual knowledge of the topic.

"D Raay" then goes on to explain some lesser known "facts" about the operatives in the administration. "D Raay" attempts to explain that all of the operatives in the administration are criminals with "felonious and murderous backgrounds" although he/she doesn't explain who these people are, what crimes they have commited or what positions they hold. Well i've got some news for you "D Raay"; a person can still run for government and can still be appointed to government even if they are federal a criminal as long as their criminal status does not interfere with their ability to govern responsably and represent their constituents (A concept that you did not even attampt to address, even though it is the only way to effectivley prove your position - but don't worry, it probably wouldn't have made a difference anyways).

"D Raay" then puts it all in "Perspective" by essentially explaining that american citizens are ignorant and stupid, which is why he is apparently the only person who is able to understand what is going on. "D Raay" fails to realize, however, that the American system is a multi-party system with a strong seperation of the powers. The American government system is the only system in the world with such an extensive and intricate system of checks and balances - How is it possible that the democrat party, a party that is constantly in competition with the Republican party, and will do anything to discredit the Republican party could manage to overlook the evil rise of neo-conservatism as "D Raay" explained it in his entry? Is "D Raay" suggesting that he knows more than the democrats do? If not, then why have the democrats said nothing about this? How is it possible that "D Raay" is the only person in America who is able to see and understand the horrific changes in American politics? simple - these changes are not happening.

What "D Raay"'s case all boils down to is not much. He/she has given you an idea of what she/he thinks is happening in American government, stated his/her opinion as though it were a truth, and then backed it all up with...nothing. "D Raay" has provided no actual facts throughout his/her entire entry. "D Raay" has provided no logical reasoning throughout his/her entire entry. "D Raay" has created a story about the deceit of American people by their government - and then deceived you in telling it.

[Ace42X]

It seems the purpose of this entry was to explain to anyone who would listen that "D Raay" knows and understands more about American politics than everybody else.

Whereas the purpose of creating an alt was? To avoid ignore filters? To create the illusion of multiplicity of support? To make a criticism and side-step counter accusations of bias, etc.

[Ace42X]

To be quite honest, i found "D Raay"'s opinions to be downright offensive.

Which is why you then embarked on character assassination and a hatchet-job? Count the number of times you say "D Raay" and tell me this was about the argument, not about scoring points.

"D Raay" repeatedly uses logical fallacies instead of factual proof or deductive reasoning to try and blind readers into thinking that his opinions are provable facts (Which i guess he/she had to do, because otherwise his/her entry would sound as ridiculous as it actually is).

Heh, how pretentious. I think you need to study logical fallacies a little more closely. You have yet to actually give an example of him "using a logical fallacy". Same incorrect and inept use of rhetoric as SamIam.

But don't let your gross hypocrisy get in the way of your point though.

"D Raay" started off his/her entry by attmpting to prove that George W. Bush and absolutley everyone else even remotley associated with his government practiced and believed in the fundamentals of neo-conservatism as outlined by Levi Strauss. This "arguement" is completley illegitimate for several reasons:

Actually, his argument was nothing of the sort. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, let us start with "the strawman." Fuckhead. The first thing he did was seperate the groups into two distinct flavours. Neo-conservatives was jsut bullet point numer one. He also specified "the administration" - not "absolutely everyone else, including the milkman." And it is LEO Strauss.

1."D Raay" failed to prove or even factually suggest

'Factually suggest' ? When you make up terms to try and seem clever, you just seem like an ass. He did make suggestions, and he put forward arguments factually. You haven't actually REFUTED a single thing. Furthermore, he said "please search for the facts yourself." It is not like he failed to make provision for that argument.

This arguement is a paradox.

Only if you are using the word paradox in a purely private sense, just as you argue that these people are using the term "neo-con" in a purely private sense. I suggest you drop this point here and now, as your understanding of linguistics is about as feeble as your attempts to convince others of your mastery over it.

If the Bush administration has been dubbed "Neo-Conserative" by people who do not understand the meaning of the word, then he word has gained a new meaning as it pertains to Bush, i.e. the word "Neo-conservative" has evolved to the point where it no longer has an association to Strauss or is ideologies.

An unfounded assertion. It has been "dubbed" neo-conservative by people who do understand the word and its connotations. This title is accepted by the media, but many people do not understand what it means and thus misuse the term. This does not equate to it "taking on a new meaning."

An analogy would be the popular misuse of the term schizophrenia, which is often confused in popular literature with the quite seperate Multiple Personality Disorder. No matter how many people or TV programs say that "schizophrenia is having multiple personalities" - it doesn't change the fact that they are subjectively wrong. While popular usage can bring about a paradigm shift, it is illogical to conflate the two. THAT is a logic error.

A term can be popularly misused - the misuse doesn't "become right" through popularity.

In fact, most factors of an ideological theory do not become part of the actual institution, and have not become part of the institution with any other ideologie, to suggest that they have (especially with neo-conservatism) is an arguement completley void of any logic or actual knowledge of the topic.

Again, wrong. It is perfectly logical to assume that an institution's professed ideology has a direct effect on its policies. And if you had any knowledge on the subject, rather than a fictional history diploma, you'd know that it is illogical to suggest that circumstantial evidence (which is inadmissable, incidently) proves your case.

"Most factors" - are you going to prove this unfounded assertion? 75% of factors in 33% of ideologies? Come on, give us some "facts."

Oh, wait, you can't, because you re full of hot air.

"D Raay" attempts to explain that all of the operatives in the administration are criminals with "felonious and murderous backgrounds"

"All" ? No, he didn't say that. Strawman fallacy.

although he/she doesn't explain who these people are, what crimes they have commited or what positions they hold.

Actually, he did. He mentioned the Contras affair. Feel free to research it, and thus get some "actual knowledge of the topic."

"D Raay" then puts it all in "Perspective" by essentially explaining that american citizens are ignorant and stupid,

Assuming you are an American, and assuming you were not heavily sedated when constructing this post, he might well have a point.

[quot]"D Raay" fails to realize, however, that the American system is a multi-party system with a strong seperation of the powers.[/quote]

Two party system, whose checks and balances have been totally eroded. But nice try.

The American government system is the only system in the world with such an extensive and intricate system of checks and balances

Wrong, numerous nations have a much more sophisticated system. And the checks and balances are completely over-ridden all the time, for example passing into law unsatisfactory legisilation tagged onto a bill that people are unwilling to vote-down. For example Bush Snr usurping the powers of congress. For example Bush jnr's party rigging elections. For example illegal wiretaps. Etc etc etc.

How is it possible that the democrat party, a party that is constantly in competition with the Republican party, and will do anything to discredit the Republican party could manage to overlook the evil rise of neo-conservatism

Several reasons, that anyone with an ounce of common sense could pick out. Firstly, you don't shit on your own doorstep. The Republicans and the Democrats have a good little hustle going on, and it is not in their interests to rock the boat. Secondly, a lot of prominent Democrats are in favour of precisely the same things. Need I remind you that Kerry and Bush are both Bonesmen? Thirdly, they ARE "tattle-tailing" on the Republicans *all the time* and it fails to be reported, because it is less newsworthy than a brain-dead vegetable having her lifesupport turned off. Who does Colin Powell's son work for? Hmmm?

If not, then why have the democrats said nothing about this?

They have, but, AS HE SAID, it wasn't on the news, and YOU WEREN'T LISTENING. So, they dumb it down. No point in pissing in the wind.

stated his/her opinion as though it were a truth, and then backed it all up with...nothing. "D Raay" has provided no actual facts throughout his/her entire entry. "D Raay" has provided no logical reasoning throughout his/her entire entry. "D Raay" has created a story about the deceit of American people by their government - and then deceived you in telling it.

Replace D Raay with your name, it still works. Really, try harder.

[graham]

"Which is why you then embarked on character assassination and a hatchet-job? Count the number of times you say "D Raay" and tell me this was about the argument, not about scoring points."

I never embarked on character assasination in my reply, I attacked "D Raay"'s arguements and never himself. As for the number of times I said "D Raay", i was reflecting on "D Raay"'s post, and therefore I had no choice but to refer to him as "D Raay".

Heh, how pretentious. I think you need to study logical fallacies a little more closely. You have yet to actually give an example of him "using a logical fallacy". Same incorrect and inept use of rhetoric as SamIam.

I did not feel it was necessary to give examles of these logical fallacies as I explained them when I attacked his points, but, for your benefit, "D Raay"'s post contains examples of equivocation when he uses the same word with different meanings in an arguement, numerous examples of argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad consequentiam, red herrings and non sequiturs to name just a few. In fact, the entire "Fictional Tale of Horror" is nothing but argumentum ad metam. I think if anyone needs to study logical fallacies a little more closely its you.

Actually, his argument was nothing of the sort. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, let us start with "the strawman." Fuckhead. The first thing he did was seperate the groups into two distinct flavours. Neo-conservatives was jsut bullet point numer one. He also specified "the administration" - not "absolutely everyone else, including the milkman." And it is LEO Strauss.

Actually, his arguement was everything of the sort, and I explained why in my reply (Which you apparently didn't read to closely considering you didnt attempt to refute it directly). And you obviously don't understand the concept of "Straw Man" or else you would have attempted to explain how I used the straw man. And if you want to talk about character assasination, maybe you should review your own posts, "fuckhead".

'Factually suggest' ? When you make up terms to try and seem clever, you just seem like an ass. He did make suggestions, and he put forward arguments factually. You haven't actually REFUTED a single thing. Furthermore, he said "please search for the facts yourself." It is not like he failed to make provision for that argument.

First of all, "factually" is an actual term, If you don't believe me then look in a dictionary, I promise it will be there. Second, "D Raay" did not use any facts to back up his position that the Bush administration has made any changes in policy that would resemble the changes proposed by Strauss, which was his major arguement. He failed to prove that the "criminals and murdurers" Bush has appointed to high positions would be unable to fulfill their positions, which would have been the whole point of bringing forth that idea. Third, as much as I hate to say it, when creating a post that takes such a strong position and insults the intelligence and merit of Bush supporters (More than alf the American population) you can't just ask people to "please search for the facts yourself", because providing the facts that support your position is the point of taking a stand like this.

Only if you are using the word paradox in a purely private sense, just as you argue that these people are using the term "neo-con" in a purely private sense. I suggest you drop this point here and now, as your understanding of linguistics is about as feeble as your attempts to convince others of your mastery over it.

"D Raay" argued that most Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "Neo-con".

He also argued that these same people have dubbed the Bush administration as "Neo-cons".

If the people who have called the Bush administration Neo-cons have not called the bush administration neo-cons because they represent Strauss's principles, then the line drawn between Bush and Strauss is a fallacy (equivocation to be exact). This is a perfect example of a paradox because "D Raay" has used an arguement to support another arguement where the prior actually refutes the latter. Maybe next time you try to look intelligent by refuting arguments you don't understand you should look up some information on what your saying first. (By the way, a paradox is a literary device that has nothing to do with linguistics. But nice try)

An unfounded assertion. It has been "dubbed" neo-conservative by people who do understand the word and its connotations. This title is accepted by the media, but many people do not understand what it means and thus misuse the term. This does not equate to it "taking on a new meaning."

An analogy would be the popular misuse of the term schizophrenia, which is often confused in popular literature with the quite seperate Multiple Personality Disorder. No matter how many people or TV programs say that "schizophrenia is having multiple personalities" - it doesn't change the fact that they are subjectively wrong. While popular usage can bring about a paradigm shift, it is illogical to conflate the two. THAT is a logic error.

A term can be popularly misused - the misuse doesn't "become right" through popularity.

Actually, when people misuse a word that has gone out of date to the point were it gains new connotations and then becomes accepted and used by the majority of the population it DOES gain a new meaning. thats why we have so many different languages. thats why more than half of the words we use now have developed this way. (By the way, this is what linguistics REALLY is - maybe you can read up on it so that you can use the term properly next time)

Again, wrong. It is perfectly logical to assume that an institution's professed ideology has a direct effect on its policies. And if you had any knowledge on the subject, rather than a fictional history diploma, you'd know that it is illogical to suggest that circumstantial evidence (which is inadmissable, incidently) proves your case.

"Most factors" - are you going to prove this unfounded assertion? 75% of factors in 33% of ideologies? Come on, give us some "facts."

Oh, wait, you can't, because you re full of hot air.

Well you obviously dd not read what I had written before you wrote this, otherwise you would have realised that my arguement was that the When ideologies are finally instituted, they have differed so substantially from their original conception by their original ideologoues (Of which Strauss was one) that they cannot possibly follow all of the guidelines set out by their original ideologoues, if you need any "facts" of this, which you shouldn't because this is common sense, then read the works of Adam Smith or Karl Marx or any other ideologue and compare those ideas to modern capitalism and modern communism to which they simply don't compare. Just because Strauss set down guidelines for neo-conservatism does not mean that the Bush administration will have to follow them to be caled neo-conservatist even in the traditional sense.
As for your "Hot Air" remark, that seems a little bit like a personal attack - hey, didn't you just critisize me for supposedly doing the same thing?

Actually, he did. He mentioned the Contras affair. Feel free to research it, and thus get some "actual knowledge of the topic."

Well actually he didn't, he specifically stated that many operatives in the Bush administration were "Felons and murderers". Is the contras affair an example of how most Bush oficials are "felons and murderers" certainly not. If you had any "Actual knowlege of the topic" then you would have realised that an made a better arguement.


Assuming you are an American, and assuming you were not heavily sedated when constructing this post, he might well have a point.

[quot]"D Raay" fails to realize, however, that the American system is a multi-party system with a strong seperation of the powers.
Two party system, whose checks and balances have been totally eroded. But nice try.[/QUOTE]

Well there we go again with some more hiprocrasy of character assasination. It is completley ridiculous to asume that you know more than most Americans, considering you are not a government official and probably have no direct relation to this subject at all, or even a relative education. If most independant journalists, most objective govenment officials and most opposing parties do not share your opinions, they are illegitimate. Secondly, multi means more than one, i.e. TWO or more, as in TWO party system. look up some linguistcs next time so you dont make any more of these careless mistakes. Thirdly, the American checks and balances system has not been totally eroded, that is a completley unfounded arguement, the American system is still multi-party and still has a seperation of powers. as long as those two facotrs exist, the government still has one of the strongest checks an balances systems in the world, if you had any type of a relative education you would understand that.

Wrong, numerous nations have a much more sophisticated system. And the checks and balances are completely over-ridden all the time, for example passing into law unsatisfactory legisilation tagged onto a bill that people are unwilling to vote-down. For example Bush Snr usurping the powers of congress. For example Bush jnr's party rigging elections. For example illegal wiretaps. Etc etc etc.

First of all, no elections have been rigged for this presidency, thats why the democrats have a majority in the senate. Second, tagging unfavorable bills onto favorable bills will not allow America to undergo the neo-con changes suggested before, there have been no examples of this ever happening or being likley to happen, and there is no other system in the world with a stronger set of checks and balances.

Several reasons, that anyone with an ounce of common sense could pick out. Firstly, you don't shit on your own doorstep. The Republicans and the Democrats have a good little hustle going on, and it is not in their interests to rock the boat. Secondly, a lot of prominent Democrats are in favour of precisely the same things. Need I remind you that Kerry and Bush are both Bonesmen? Thirdly, they ARE "tattle-tailing" on the Republicans *all the time* and it fails to be reported, because it is less newsworthy than a brain-dead vegetable having her lifesupport turned off. Who does Colin Powell's son work for? Hmmm?

First of all, there are numerous outlets of left-wing media in the US that would be happy to expose the "neo-con revolution", and the democrats would not be able to shut up about it if they thought it was happening. Look on some Democrat websites. These websites are not cesored by the media, yet they do not suggest any of the arguements you have made. I wonder why? Second, if the only two parties in the US are both apperntly neo-cons, then why have we not seen the changes you have proposed might happen? If neo-cons control all aspects of government, shouldn't we be living in a neo-con world right now? Also I find your reference to a woman's death offensive and extraordinarily unnecessary.

They have, but, AS HE SAID, it wasn't on the news, and YOU WEREN'T LISTENING. So, they dumb it down. No point in pissing in the wind.

Oh, of course. it seems completey reasonable to me that if a neo-con party were to take over the country and the democrats wouldn't have acess to the media then they would just shut up. I'm sure they would think of using any one of a growing number of other left-wing media outlets or the internet.

Replace D Raay with your name, it still works. Really, try harder.

So apparently, you wrote all of this reply not to provide an opinion like D Raay did, and not to promote discussion like myself, but instead to try and refute any arguement you come across with logic that you don't fully understand. If you feel that "it still works" either way, then why bother to spend the time typing?

[Ace42X]

As for the number of times I said "D Raay", i was reflecting on "D Raay"'s post, and therefore I had no choice but to refer to him as "D Raay".

Bullshit. Count the number of times you referred to him by name, and compare it to the number of times anyone else does in a post. You were totally fixated on him.

I did not feel it was necessary to give examles of these logical fallacies as I explained them when I attacked his points, but, for your benefit, "D Raay"'s post contains examples of equivocation when he uses the same word with different meanings in an arguement, numerous examples of argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad consequentiam, red herrings and non sequiturs to name just a few. In fact, the entire "Fictional Tale of Horror" is nothing but argumentum ad metam. I think if anyone needs to study logical fallacies a little more closely its you.

I think perhaps you should, if you think that simply listing a collection of fallcies automatically means the terms apply. I could equally say that your post "contained endorsements of child molestation, when you said how young you like your girls, numerous examples of support for cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality to name just a few. Infact, the entire conclusion is nothing but advertising your prediliction for eating shit."

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

The only actual example of a specific fallacy above is "argumentum ad metam" - which google hasn't heard of, and my history of philosophical reasoning hasn't either. Whether that is due to a misspelling, or archaic latinism, I don't wish to guess.

Actually, his arguement was everything of the sort, and I explained why in my reply (Which you apparently didn't read to closely considering you didnt attempt to refute it directly). And you obviously don't understand the concept of "Straw Man" or else you would have attempted to explain how I used the straw man.

Yes, obviously I don't. Because if I can now show clearly that you were using the strawman, and that your statement was clearly wrong, that would show that you don't even have a grasp on the "obvious." And really sohudln't be lecturing anyone. And that couldn't possibly happen, could it?

Ok, from the top:

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

The argument you were attempting to refute, in your own words:
attmpting to prove that George W. Bush and absolutley everyone else even remotley associated with his government

The argument actually referred to, and I quote:
From here on, when I refer to “Bush” I also refer to the people who comprise his administration, the people who have defined the policies of his administration and the people who have led day to day operations and activities within his administration.

Clearly, it is easier for you to refute that "absolutley everyone else even remotley associated with his government practiced and believed in the fundamentals of neo-conservatism as outlined by Levi Strauss"

Than D raay's actual argument, which involved:
the two groups that play an active and powerful role in the Bush administration.
(My emphasis.)

Thus it is a classic strawman. You make an easier argument, and refute it, rather than trying to deal with the point head on. No-one can criticise your straw-man. Clearly "absolutely everyone else even remotely assoicated with his government" includes people as "remotely associated" as the tea-lady and janitor, who are very unlikely to have strong Straussian leanings.

And if you want to talk about character assasination, maybe you should review your own posts, "fuckhead".

It's called "sauce for the gander." And you *are* clearly a fuckhead.

First of all, "factually" is an actual term,

You do love the strawman don'tcha?

Yes, factually is an actual term. Infact, it is a "word." However, if you go back to my post and address my actual point, "factually suggest" isn't. Any more than you can "factually sew" or "factually drive your car." The two single-quote marks either side of BOTH words should've helped you out with picking out what I was referring to. But maybe you are blind as well as an asshole.

Second, "D Raay" did not use any facts to back up his position that the Bush administration has made any changes in policy that would resemble the changes proposed by Strauss, which was his major arguement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

Perhaps it is YOU who should check the dictionary? His post contained many "things believed to be true and real." You are confusing "facts" with "evidence / proof". Don't worry, a lot of idiots make that mistake. Yes, there was no evidence / proof, and if you had pulled him up on that, I would not have been obliged to point your error out.

He failed to prove that the "criminals and murdurers" Bush has appointed to high positions would be unable to fulfill their positions, which would have been the whole point of bringing forth that idea.

Again, strawman. It is not for you to tell him, or anyone else, what his "point" was, as if you knew it better than he, and certainly not to then use that as the basis of an argument.

However, you are also guilty of the is-ought fallacy here:
a person can still run for government and can still be appointed to government even if they are federal a criminal

Just because they can, it doesn't mean that this is ethically right.

It is also a Red Herring, as the legal status wasn't of prime concern in that context.

Also, as you prefaced the whole criticism with "you didn't say who they were" - you thus using the following refutation:
as long as their criminal status does not interfere with their ability to govern responsably and represent their constituents
is beside the point. You can no more assume that they do not, than he can assume that they do.

you can't just ask people to "please search for the facts yourself", because providing the facts that support your position is the point of taking a stand like this.

Assuming you are new (which I do not, infact, believe) - you will soon learn that the people he was supposedly targeting do not believe any information that is presented to them, unless they have gone to sources of their own personal preference. Providing "liberal" links doesn't cut it. Thus, telling them to search for themselves means they will not get defensive and are less likely to accuse the other person of providing biased or innaccurate information. Optimistic in my opinion, but there you go.

He also argued that these same people have dubbed the Bush administration as "Neo-cons".

Where? I must've missed that. Not that I am saying I am positive he didn't, but I've read through a couple of times, and I can't see that phrase.

If the people who have called the Bush administration Neo-cons have not called the bush administration neo-cons because they represent Strauss's principles, then the line drawn between Bush and Strauss is a fallacy (equivocation to be exact).

Yes, but you have yet to show that to be the case here. Thus, another strawman.

This is a perfect example of a paradox because "D Raay" has used an arguement to support another arguement where the prior actually refutes the latter. Maybe next time you try to look intelligent by refuting arguments you don't understand you should look up some information on what your saying first.

You'd have a point. If your version of what was said was a shade closer to reality.

(By the way, a paradox is a literary device that has nothing to do with linguistics. But nice try)

Actually, I was referring to your inability to follow what was actually being said, not your use of the word "paradox." However, I think you just made my point for me really quite clearly there.

Actually, when people misuse a word that has gone out of date to the point were it gains new connotations and then becomes accepted and used by the majority of the population it DOES gain a new meaning. thats why we have so many different languages. thats why more than half of the words we use now have developed this way. (By the way, this is what linguistics REALLY is - maybe you can read up on it so that you can use the term properly next time)

The etymological development words is a complicated and gradual process. You are conflating a process that can take centuries into five days, and then masquerading that as fact. By your argument, anything accepted as right by more than 50% of the population is right. If you do a quick straw-poll, you'll find that more than 50% of the population don't use capitalisation, punctuation or correct syntax. According to you, we should all be spelling "no-one" as "no1". This is clearly not the case. What it is boiling down to is that you are pretending that your personal opinion about the etymological stage the term is at is definitive. Clearly hypocritical given your tirade against D raay.

If no-one understands the term neo-con, and are using it arbitrarily, then there can be no "accepted" connotation. I could go on at length about this, as I said earlier I believe, but that would be another red herring.

Well you obviously dd not read what I had written before you wrote this,

I did, you were wrong, as I pointed out. Live with it.

otherwise you would have realised that my arguement was that the When ideologies are finally instituted, they have differed so substantially from their original conception by their original ideologoues (Of which Strauss was one) that they cannot possibly follow all of the guidelines set out by their original ideologoues,

Ok, a very simple refutation of this argument using Socratic method.

Logically, if I conceive and original ideology (me thus being the original ideologue) and implement it, and this implementation follows all of the guidelines, you are refuted.

Ok, here is my ideology: "In the next three words, following this sentence, I should insult you."

"You suck dick."

There we go, point proved. You're wrong, QED.

if you need any "facts" of this, which you shouldn't because this is common sense, then read the works of Adam Smith or Karl Marx or any other ideologue and compare those ideas to modern capitalism and modern communism to which they simply don't compare.

Circumstantial evidence, leading to inductive reasoning. This is a fallacy of faulty generalisation.

Just because Strauss set down guidelines for neo-conservatism does not mean that the Bush administration will have to follow them to be caled neo-conservatist even in the traditional sense.

Yes it does. If not, what is "neo-conservatist" in the traditional sense? And how precisely do these people differ? Oh, that's right, because of Marx or Adam Smith. It is perfectly logical to transpose an argument from them to Strauss...

As for your "Hot Air" remark, that seems a little bit like a personal attack - hey, didn't you just critisize me for supposedly doing the same thing?

Yes, I do it quite a lot. You see, I am more than happy to be considered inflammatory and rude. Because I don't care if you take me seriously or not. Nor do I care if anyone else thinks I am rude. However, I take great pride in showing YOU up for the ass you are. I think it is amusing that you can dish it out, but not take it.

Well actually he didn't, he specifically stated that many operatives in the Bush administration were "Felons and murderers". Is the contras affair an example of how most Bush oficials are "felons and murderers" certainly not. If you had any "Actual knowlege of the topic" then you would have realised that an made a better arguement.

fel·on1 Audio pronunciation of "felon" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fln)
n.

1. Law. One who has committed a felony.
2. Archaic. An evil person.

I'd certainly say that murderers are evil under any traditional sense, and I am pretty sure that murder is a felony, as is ordering someone's murder, and conspiracy to murder. I am not positive, I am not an expert on US law, but I am quite sure that is the case here.

Aside from the legal rammifications:
Both the sale of weapons and the funding of the Contras violated stated administration policy as well as legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, which had blocked further Contra funding.

violated legislation... broke the law... Hmmm... So it was unlawful... And people were killed... The killers were funded intentionally by...

Oh, I give up, the whole thing was just so complicated, clearly it is impossible to attribute guilt!

If most independant journalists, most objective govenment officials and most opposing parties do not share your opinions, they are illegitimate.

That's argumentum ad populum - you sure are racking these up.

Secondly, multi means more than one, i.e. TWO or more, as in TWO party system. look up some linguistcs next time so you dont make any more of these careless mistakes.

Ok, I will:
# More than two: multilateral.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multi

If you want to argue the context, be my guess. You'll still be wrong.

Thirdly, the American checks and balances system has not been totally eroded, that is a completley unfounded arguement,

Ramsay Clark, the former US attourney general stated that Bush senior had usurped the powers of congress by moving the US armed forces to an offensive footing without consultation. This he laid before an international warcrimes tribunal. But of course, you know more about the law than someone who holds one of the highest legal offices in your nation.

It's not like a president over-stepping his authority and taking upon himself the right to unilaterally start an armed conflict without any consultation to anyone else is avoiding being "checked" or "balanced" though, right?

if you had any type of a relative education you would understand that.

If by "education" you mean insular nationalistic indoctrination, then sure, whatever... Of course if YOU knew anything about the political systems of other nations, you'd know that the US's is nothing special, and is subverted with such alarming regularity that the rest of the world considers it a joke.

First of all, no elections have been rigged for this presidency,

Bzzt, wrong. A report in the Guardian showed conclusively that Bush's ballots were stuffed by Republican activists. Whether this had a massive effect or isolated incident is irrelevant. Add to this the fact that diebold machines were a total joke that my nan could hack, and you have some serious questions being raised.

Second, tagging unfavorable bills onto favorable bills will not allow America to undergo the neo-con changes suggested before, there have been no examples of this ever happening or being likley to happen,

Bullshit, it happens all the time, only a few weeks ago, there were newspapers complaining that a military spending bill that senators felt obliged to vote for (because of the 'support our troops hysteria' no doubt) had a bill curtailing civil liberties tacked on the end. Ditto with amendations to the patriot act in its various incarnations. But hey...

and there is no other system in the world with a stronger set of checks and balances.

So plenty of impartial newspapers continually presenting unbiased fact couldn't possibly be right!

Second, if the only two parties in the US are both apperntly neo-cons, then why have we not seen the changes you have proposed might happen?

Like illegal wiretaps? And the introduction of the patriot act?

If neo-cons control all aspects of government, shouldn't we be living in a neo-con world right now?

Like extraordinary rendition, and illegal wars?

Also I find your reference to a woman's death offensive and extraordinarily unnecessary.

Like I give a rat's ass. I find your mother not having an abortion offensive.

I'm sure they would think of using any one of a growing number of other left-wing media outlets or the internet.

You mean like those millions of blogs online that say precisely that? They are. You just marginalise and ignore them, through an act of cognitive dissonance. Because you're a prick.

So apparently, you wrote all of this (... to ...) refute any arguement you come across with logic that you don't fully understand.

Hah, so far you have yet to show any relevent or apt use of logic, and have totally ignored some SERIOUS logic errors in your posts. Fortunately, now I have spelled a couple out, you might take the time to read up a little more yourself, and come back (after a long long sojourn fucking yourself) with something more substantial.


If you feel that "it still works" either way, then why bother to spend the time typing?

<sigh> Because you were wrong, and needed to be corrected like an insolent child. Now you can piss of, having wasted more than enough of my time as it is. Welcome back to the ignore list for a third time, Sam.

If you wanted me to listen to you again, there were better ways of going about it than this charade.

[D_Raay]

As mentioned above, Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles. This has been both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many conservatives), and because some of his students, such as Allan Bloom and Harry V. Jaffa, and his students' students, are themselves controversial public figures.

Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss; Wolfowitz attended two courses which Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu's spirit of the laws. Indeed James Mann claims that Wolfowitz chose that University because Strauss taught there and believed him to be 'a unique figure, an irreplaceable asset'. Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter. Thomas J. DiLorenzo also claims intellectual links to Allan Bloom.

Not unlike Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Leo Strauss believed that the vices of democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodeictic principle (i.e. not self evident or beyond contradiction), he has gained the reputation for being an enemy to democracy.

In Saul Bellow's quasi-biographical novel Ravelstein, (2001) the minor character Davarr is based on Strauss, while the central character of Ravelstein represents Strauss' protegé Allan Bloom.

In 2004 the BBC produced a controversial three-part documentary on the threat from organised terrorism called the Power of Nightmares. This documentary attempts to show how Leo Strauss's teachings, among others, played a formative role in current US foreign policy, in particular the later years of the Cold War and the War on Terror. The connection to Strauss is established via his students, as Strauss himself, of course, wrote hardly a word on foreign policy, let alone anything related to current US foreign policy.

This is a problem faced by all teachers, the fanatic loyalists who fanaticism is quite alien to the teacher's disposition. They develop an almost religious reverence for this man whose teaching they are so deeply impressed by but are not themselves in a position adequately to judge. ... But there is a danger that he will be misinterepreted or rigified or codified by them in a way contrary to the spirit of his teaching. There is the further danger that the pupil's inprudence, partly connected with preening himself with this special learning, will attract undue and hostile attention to that teaching. Pupils can appear to be members of a crazy sect and permit onlookers to dismiss teacher as well as pupils.

What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)

By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.

If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.

The inquiry has documented at least some of the ways the prime minister’s entourage ‘sexed up’ the presentation of intelligence on the Iraqi threat. But few doubt that in terms of their philosophy, if they have one, members of Blair’s staff believe they must be trusted as honest. Any apparent deceptions they may be involved in are for them matters of presentation or ‘spin’: attempts to project an honest gloss when surrounded by a dishonest media.

The deep influence of Leo Strauss’s ideas on the current architects of US foreign policy has been referred to, if sporadically, in the press (hence an insider witticism about the influence of “Leo-cons”). Christopher Hitchens, an ardent advocate of the war, wrote unashamedly in November 2002 (in an article felicitously titled Machiavelli in Mesopotamia) that:

“[p]art of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss – and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow’s novel Ravelstein – one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.”

Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She is also the author of Alexandre Kojève: the Roots of Postmodern Politics (1994) and Terror and Civilization (forthcoming).

You see where I am going with this right?

It's nice to see a Bush supporter who is actually well read and educated, if not possibly misguided. But then I may be, but I certainly don't imagine it.

BTW you don't REALLY want to get into Iran Contra do you?

[Ace42X]

It's nice to see a Bush supporter who is actually well read and educated, if not possibly misguided. But then I may be, but I certainly don't imagine it.

He isn't. It's SamIam trolling again, using piecemeal crap he pulled off of wikipedia like a parrot.

[Qdrop]

He isn't. It's SamIam trolling again, using piecemeal crap he pulled off of wikipedia like a parrot.

well, Draaay didn't exactly write that himself either, ace.

the parroting began with D, if anyone.

[EN[i]GMA]

As a note to your 'Neo Cons' post: The original 'neo-conservatives' were actually Trotskyite Democratics who switched parties. The actual Neo-Con movement supported social welfare programs, etc., but supported a hawkish foregin policy.

It's really quite fascinating, connecting Trotsky's beliefs with the Neo-Con beliefs, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

History and origins of neoconservatism

Great Depression and World War II

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left, especially in reponse to key developments in modern American history.

The forerunners of neoconservativism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman (A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth, while others were later involved with Social Democrats USA. Most neoconservatives, however, including those who have been close to SDUSA, will strenuously deny, even contrary to evidence, that they were ever Shachtmanites.

Opposition to Détente with the Soviet Union and the views of the the anti-Soviet and anti-capitalist New Left, which emerged in response to the Soviet Union's break with Stalinism in the 1950s, would cause the Neoconservatives to split with the "liberal consensus" of the early postwar years. The original "neoconservative" theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were often associated with the magazine Commentary, and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King.

Drift away from New Left and Great Society

While initially, the views of the New Left became very popular among the children of hardline Communists, often Jewish immigrant families on the edge of poverty and including those of some of today's most famous neoconservative thinkers, some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, exemplified in the emerging New Left by the movement against the Vietnam War.

As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while also becoming disillusioned with the Johnson Administration's Great Society.

Academics in these circles, many of whom were still Democrats, rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Many clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat derisively known as the "Senator from Boeing," but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet "expansionism."

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote that neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' When the Cold War ended, "many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."[1]


In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography Of An Idea, Irving Kristol cites a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on some neoconservatives has generated some controversy. Some argue that Strauss's influence has left some neoconservatives adopting a Machiavellian view of politics. See Leo Strauss for a discussion of this controversy.


I'm not educated enough on the subject of Neo-Conservatism to enter the Strauss debate, but I think it's interesting the diversity and divisions of the idealogy.


Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations?

Many believe that the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force, parallels the Trotskyist dream of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues.

Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", which is concerned with the pace of radical social change in the third world, and neoconservative support for a "global democratic revolution", with its Wilsonian roots. But Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world.

Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."

Another author who has focused extensively on this phenomenon is Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. He explains the left-wing roots of neoconservatism thus:

Antiwar.com is run by ardent libertarians who, as I've noticed, seem to have a habit of portraying the Neo-Cons as leftist.

I wonder if this sourcing influences the bias of the article at all...


Shachtman split off from the main body of Trotskyism in 1940, forming the Workers Party, of which Burnham was briefly a member. He stubbornly maintained his devotion to the cause of socialism, but alongside it began to develop a strategic orientation that involved less revolutionary means to achieve it. As the Workers Party began to move into the 1950s and beyond, they changed their name to the Independent Socialist League and buried themselves in the old Socialist Party. They became a major force in the AFL-CIO on account of their hold on union offices, and the militant anti-Stalinism of the Trotskyist left, in the end, translated into a militant anti-Communism that owed more to Senator "Scoop" Jackson, of Washington, the hardline cold warrior Democrat, than to an orthodox interpretation of the Communist classics. Shachtman and his followers soon latched on to the senator as the exemplar of their foreign policy views, and it was through this connection – Shachtman supported Jackson's abortive presidential bid and planted his followers on staff – that the neocons made their first appearance in Washington. The Jackson connection was the first beachhead established by Shachtman and his followers in Washington, when they were still in the Democratic Party. Their party loyalties, however, as we have seen, were less than rock solid, and they readily moved into the Republican Party when both necessity and opportunity required it.


As Raimondo and others see it, the Shachtmanites, from Social Democrats USA and into the Reagan Administration onward, were acting on a totally orthodox Leninist trajectory of entryism, and a massively successful one at that. The vintage Leninist staple of the front group was particularly evident, from the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger in the 1970s to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies today. Any intellectual inconsistency in a merger with the Straussians - after all, both Trotsky and Strauss were firm believers in the power of an elite with esoteric knowledge to lead the masses - would therefore seem superfluous. Raimondo has therefore seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult.

Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz.

Is it really fair to say Christopher Hitchens is a Neo-Con? I'm not so sure.

But, as an interesting side-not, he considered himself a Trotskyite.

So he, a former Trotskyite, adheres to the major ideological point of the Neo-Cons, former Trotskyites, but he isn't a Neo-Con (In my opinion).

How strange and twisted these terms become.


Also, Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Interesting you bring him up.

Is it accurate to call him a Neo-Con? I truly don't know, but I have one of his books (I wasn't particularly impressed by it.) and he seems like a rabid libertarian.

I mean, he's an Austrian economist, which precludes him from being a Neo-Con, I would think.

[sam i am]

I'm not sure whether to be flattered or insulted that ace thinks I'm graham. I'm surely not technologically as advanced as I'd like to be to pull off such a bit of trickery, but I suppose I'll take it as a compliment that ace believes me capable of such nefariousness.

IF ace were even half as smart as he has indoctrinated himself to be, he'd realize that I LIKE D_Raay and have had numerous discussions with him that have not devolved into the kind of poppycock rambling and raving with the pretentiousness of the "Philosophical Reasoning" that ace so loves to employ so as to bask in the grandeur of his own deluded self-ramblings.

I could care less if ace ever hears any of my arguments. People like D_Raay, Q, Queen, etc., et al have engaged me in debate and we have (I hope) at least a modicum of respect for each other as fellow Americans who would like to see the US be a great country. We OFTEN disagree on how to get to that point, but I'm sure my summation at the top of this thread, where I clearly and concisely stated what "neo-cons" stand for in my estimation was the end of that particular part of the discussion.

For the record, I do NOT agree with "graham's" verbal assault on D_Raay despite my agreement, in principle, with his point of view.

[Ace42X]

well, Draaay didn't exactly write that himself either, ace.

the parroting began with D, if anyone.

Did I say otherwise?

[sam i am]

Did I say otherwise?

COULD you backpedal any quicker?

[D_Raay]

GMA']As a note to your 'Neo Cons' post: The original 'neo-conservatives' were actually Trotskyite Democratics who switched parties. The actual Neo-Con movement supported social welfare programs, etc., but supported a hawkish foregin policy.

It's really quite fascinating, connecting Trotsky's beliefs with the Neo-Con beliefs, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)



I'm not educated enough on the subject of Neo-Conservatism to enter the Strauss debate, but I think it's interesting the diversity and divisions of the idealogy.



Antiwar.com is run by ardent libertarians who, as I've noticed, seem to have a habit of portraying the Neo-Cons as leftist.

I wonder if this sourcing influences the bias of the article at all...



Is it really fair to say Christopher Hitchens is a Neo-Con? I'm not so sure.

But, as an interesting side-not, he considered himself a Trotskyite.

So he, a former Trotskyite, adheres to the major ideological point of the Neo-Cons, former Trotskyites, but he isn't a Neo-Con (In my opinion).

How strange and twisted these terms become.


Also, Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Interesting you bring him up.

Is it accurate to call him a Neo-Con? I truly don't know, but I have one of his books (I wasn't particularly impressed by it.) and he seems like a rabid libertarian.

I mean, he's an Austrian economist, which precludes him from being a Neo-Con, I would think.


It is fascinating in my opinion. I apologize if any of this offends any true conservatives or libertarians out there. That was certainly not my intent.

As I mentioned, it is the students of such men that we should be wary of.

[sam i am]

It is fascinating in my opinion. I apologize if any of this offends any true conservatives or libertarians out there. That was certainly not my intent.

As I mentioned, it is the students of such men that we should be wary of.

I find it fascinating as well...but I have to admit that I had never heard of Strauss or any of this background material until you brought it up, D_Raay.

As I've said before, my history studies have tended to focus on the World Wars, Roman History, Byzantine History, and general European History. Some of the details and underpinnings to modern beliefs are interesting from an academic point of view, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of "neo-cons" in the US believe in a more activist role for the US in the world (aka anti-non-interventionist), supply side economics on a macro scale (budget deficits, low taxes), and a LOT of pragmatism and incremetalism to gradually reshape the US in a more conservative direction (this includes sublimation of "Liberal" ideas when it benefits, in the long run, the continued supremacy of the Republicans in Congress in order to EVENTUALLY have the country be a more conservative bastion in the world).

[D_Raay]

I find it fascinating as well...but I have to admit that I had never heard of Strauss or any of this background material until you brought it up, D_Raay.

As I've said before, my history studies have tended to focus on the World Wars, Roman History, Byzantine History, and general European History. Some of the details and underpinnings to modern beliefs are interesting from an academic point of view, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of "neo-cons" in the US believe in a more activist role for the US in the world (aka anti-non-interventionist), supply side economics on a macro scale (budget deficits, low taxes), and a LOT of pragmatism and incremetalism to gradually reshape the US in a more conservative direction (this includes sublimation of "Liberal" ideas when it benefits, in the long run, the continued supremacy of the Republicans in Congress in order to EVENTUALLY have the country be a more conservative bastion in the world).

Sure but replace "US" with world. These neocons, whether they indeed are simply misunderstood or sinister in nature should be the focal point for both sides of the aisle right now. The rabid spending, the secrecy, the shere arrogance.

I am hopeful when I see prominent figures from your side come out and question the motivations of the administration(which is becoming more frequent).

I think what we need right now is a Libertarian in office. I may be wrong, but the two parties have certainly severed any trust I have had in either one.

[EN[i]GMA]

supply side economics on a macro scale (budget deficits, low taxes),

I'm not so certain.

As I said earlier, tradition Neo-Cons are actually very supportive of governmental social spending.

Bush Co. are massive social spenders, to be sure.

I don't think Neo-Cons have ever been ardent supporters of 'low deficits' or 'low taxes' or even of supply-side economics.

Those are more paleo-conservative things.

Now a Neo-Con will parrot away about those things, because you can't really go around saying "I'm going rack up a massive deficit", but look at their actions.

I don't consider the Reagan presidency to be particularly 'neo-conservative'; it was just normal Cold War conservative policy.

Now the BUsh Administration is Neo-Conservative, and there are differences between Bush and Reagan, namely in areas of social spending.


and a LOT of pragmatism and incremetalism to gradually reshape the US in a more conservative direction (this includes sublimation of "Liberal" ideas when it benefits, in the long run, the continued supremacy of the Republicans in Congress in order to EVENTUALLY have the country be a more conservative bastion in the world).

'Pragmatism and incrementalism'? Try realpolitik and drastic ideological stands.

There is nothing 'pragmatic' about a lot of what they do, the Iraq war for instance.

If we really wanted to stop terrorism, and that were our only goal, we could simply seal off the borders, not allow any Arabs to come to this country, and line our army up around the borders to prevent unlawful access.

That would undoubtably do more to stop actual terrorism in America than starting a war in Iraq, and it would be the more 'pragmatic' thing to do.

I don't think it would be a good thing to do, but it certainly would be pragmatic and probably effective.

THe invasion of Iraq was completely ideologically based and wasn't pragmatic at all.

Incrementalism? I don't think so either.

Neo-Cons have no aversion to 'rocking the boat' with their policy.

Again, Iraq is the perfect example.

[graham]

I think if anything we can all agree that the Bush administration is moving a bit too far right for any of us to be comfortable with. Whether or not the administration is following Strauss's principles or another set of principles, it is apparent that increasingly more extreme changes are taking place.

Also to D Raay, I am sorry if my post sounded like a verbal assault, that was certainly not my intent. But as someone who considers himself to be more on the Republican side of things, It seemed like your opinions were condemning of all Republicans including myself, as you seemed to state all your opinions as truths. I can see now that this was not the case.

And to Ace42X, I am sorry that you seem to be the only person on this board who can't form any opinions of his own, just innefectively try to refute others.

[D_Raay]

I think if anything we can all agree that the Bush administration is moving a bit too far right for any of us to be comfortable with. Whether or not the administration is following Strauss's principles or another set of principles, it is apparent that increasingly more extreme changes are taking place.

Ah thank you. That was my aim.

I am glad we came to understand each other better, which is the ultimate goal in my opinion. We need to end all this partisanship and polarisation and recognize a threat to our way of life when we see it, despite which side this threat aligns itself with (i.e. Clinton and Bush).

[sam i am]

GMA']I'm not so certain.

As I said earlier, tradition Neo-Cons are actually very supportive of governmental social spending.

Bush Co. are massive social spenders, to be sure.

I don't think Neo-Cons have ever been ardent supporters of 'low deficits' or 'low taxes' or even of supply-side economics.

Those are more paleo-conservative things.

Now a Neo-Con will parrot away about those things, because you can't really go around saying "I'm going rack up a massive deficit", but look at their actions.

I don't consider the Reagan presidency to be particularly 'neo-conservative'; it was just normal Cold War conservative policy.

Now the BUsh Administration is Neo-Conservative, and there are differences between Bush and Reagan, namely in areas of social spending.



'Pragmatism and incrementalism'? Try realpolitik and drastic ideological stands.

There is nothing 'pragmatic' about a lot of what they do, the Iraq war for instance.

If we really wanted to stop terrorism, and that were our only goal, we could simply seal off the borders, not allow any Arabs to come to this country, and line our army up around the borders to prevent unlawful access.

That would undoubtably do more to stop actual terrorism in America than starting a war in Iraq, and it would be the more 'pragmatic' thing to do.

I don't think it would be a good thing to do, but it certainly would be pragmatic and probably effective.

THe invasion of Iraq was completely ideologically based and wasn't pragmatic at all.

Incrementalism? I don't think so either.

Neo-Cons have no aversion to 'rocking the boat' with their policy.

Again, Iraq is the perfect example.

I should have made clear, and I thus welcome the opportunity to clarify, that I was employing the terms of pragmatism and incrementalism in domestic affairs...specifically social issues and economic issues.

As for international policy...as a "neo-con" or "paleo-conservative" (whichever term you choose to attribute to me), I believe that a more activist foreign policy is much more advantageous than a retrenchment into isolationism. Terrorists have not, and will not, wait for us to patiently sit behind our walls...they'll find ways to sap under them and blow us up if they are left untended (like weeds) to fester and grow outside said walls.

[Ali]

Terrorists have not, and will not, wait for us to patiently sit behind our walls...they'll find ways to sap under them and blow us up if they are left untended (like weeds) to fester and grow outside said walls.Why would they do that? What motive would they have?

Why do they bother to attack you in the first place, if not for your meddlin'?

What do they have to gain by terrorizing the American People (besides getting people to vote for the War President).

What you have said above sounds very much like something Dick "Duck!" Cheney would say... and we all know how he makes his money, don't we? Why, earning your tax dollars by supporting US armed forces overseas, of course!

How can you let these people do this to you and your children, samiam? You are an intelligent person, you must realise that the real terrorists are the ones telling you to be afraid, and using your taxes to attack, maim and kill civilians in oil-rich countries, reducing their cities to rubble, all for their own profit.

How do you explain the success of the terrorists on September 11 2001? Do you still buy that crap about them doing it all on their own, without anyone in the government knowing about it? How do you explain the fact that the plans to invade Iraq were made long before 9/11 and do you really believe that Bush is still after the perpetrators? How can you continue to support this administration, to keep believing the Lie?

Surely you must realise that the terrorists are given their power by the people who most benefit from their actions? And you know who benefits, don't you?

[sam i am]

Why would they do that? What motive would they have?

As I stated in another thread...I liken the terrorists (and especially Bin Laden) to children throwing a temper tantrum : we haven't been getting our way and we FEEL like we aren't being listened to, so we're going to destroy the game that everyone's playing instead of being reasonable and compromising.

Why do they bother to attack you in the first place, if not for your meddlin'?

I know you ardently and firmly believe in what I believe to be claptrap regarding the efficacy of oil exploitation in areas like Afghanistand and Iran/Iraq. We agree to disagree. And, BTW, Bin Laden masterminded the 1993 Twin Towers attacks BEFORE any "meddlin'" that was only meddling to those who are supporters of Bin Laden's ideology in the first place.

What do they have to gain by terrorizing the American People (besides getting people to vote for the War President)?

Attention....what they perceive to be "prestige" in the Muslim world. Like I said above, they are like children and should be handled accordingly...as the US and the vast majority of the international community is doing.

What you have said above sounds very much like something Dick "Duck!" Cheney would say... and we all know how he makes his money, don't we? Why, earning your tax dollars by supporting US armed forces overseas, of course!

I'm not sure what Cheney would say or not say, as I rarely read or listen to his speeches. The last thing I really paid attention to with him was his debate with Liebermann during the 2000 election cycle and he sounded reasonable and credible to me then. You attribute WAY too much power and influence and prestige to the VP of the US office over there in Europe : here in the US we KNOW the VP has little real power and is mainly in a caretaker role.

I don't care, nor do the majority of Americans, how Cheney or Halliburton makes their money. From what I understand, Halliburton is the ONLY company in the world that can do all of the jobs that it has undertaken. There are not viable alternatives available in the world. If there are, point them out and start yelling to the rafters that some other company is more competent or reliable or capable of doing what Halliburton dies : show them up and beat them at their game.

How can you let these people do this to you and your children, samiam? You are an intelligent person, you must realise that the real terrorists are the ones telling you to be afraid, and using your taxes to attack, maim and kill civilians in oil-rich countries, reducing their cities to rubble, all for their own profit.

"These people" are not DOING anything to me or my children. I am not afraid. I live my life on a day to day basis going to work, going on vacation, supporting my family, watching the Olympics, enjoying time with my children, etc., et al. AND, from what I can see, Iraq and Afghanistan are far better off now than they were under their previosu governances.

How do you explain the success of the terrorists on September 11 2001? Do you still buy that crap about them doing it all on their own, without anyone in the government knowing about it? How do you explain the fact that the plans to invade Iraq were made long before 9/11 and do you really believe that Bush is still after the perpetrators? How can you continue to support this administration, to keep believing the Lie?

They were successful because we were unprepared. I do "buy that crap" that they did it on their own, despite the organized effort on the part of some to try to influence me to believe otherwise (what do you have to gain by convincing yourself and others in some "spin" of conspiracy theory?)

Of course there were plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11 - we invaded under UN auspices in 1991 and had plenty of intel and info. to do so again. I do believe we are still after the perpetrators : witness the recent missile attack in Pakistan.

I support this administration because they are proponents of the basic tenets of which I am an adherent. I don't always agree with the outcomes or the efficacies, but the principles are closely aligned with mine.

Surely you must realise that the terrorists are given their power by the people who most benefit from their actions? And you know who benefits, don't you?

Bin Laden had power in Afghanistan due to his relationship with the mullahs there and his prowess at defeating the Soviets in the 1980's. He had money from his family and he has the passion of the true believer to sustain him through the difficult times.

How, exactly, has the US "benefitted" from the terrorist actions? Seems to me that the US is nearly universally despised for being attacked on 9/11 and acting to prevent it again.

[Ali]

Bin Laden had power in Afghanistan due to his relationship with the mullahs there and his prowess at defeating the Soviets in the 1980's. He had money from his family and he has the passion of the true believer to sustain him through the difficult times.

How, exactly, has the US "benefitted" from the terrorist actions? Seems to me that the US is nearly universally despised for being attacked on 9/11 and acting to prevent it again.
OBL was (and still is?) funded by the USA.

Remember the Cold War? OBL was an ally against the Reds.

The US hasn't benefited from 9/11 but it was exactly the excuse the Hawks needed to go to war.

I see you also have the passion of the true believer to sustain you through the difficult times - you must kind of respect the guy, huh?

[ASsman]

Are you telling me that companies are actually making money off of War?

[Ali]

Are you telling me that companies are actually making money off of War?Hard to believe, I know...

[sam i am]

OBL was (and still is?) funded by the USA.

Unfounded crap.

Remember the Cold War? OBL was an ally against the Reds.

So? He did good beating up on the Soviets. When he turned his crazy ideology on the US, he deserves whatever he gets as a result of his actions against the US.

The US hasn't benefited from 9/11 but it was exactly the excuse the Hawks needed to go to war.

The "Hawks," for all intents and purposes, are the US. They have the political power for now. Who knows in a few years what may or may not transpire, but I'm quite convinced that the "Hawks" will be in power for the forseeable future, so the rest of the world will probably have to continue to adjusting to it.

I see you also have the passion of the true believer to sustain you through the difficult times - you must kind of respect the guy, huh?

As must you as a fellow true believer. ;) Welcome to the club.

[sam i am]

Hard to believe, I know...

There are always profiteers and losers in war. War sucks, but it is often a necessary evil.

[D_Raay]

Disappointing sam.

You must KNOW that how you replied to Ali was really reaching at best, aside from your daily routine of course.

Oh and just how many nation building all-in-one companies should there be?
That there is even one in existence and with ties to the Cheney is proof of malfeasance in and of itself.